# NCAA student athletes getting paid



## Monello

Should student athletes, in revenue generating sports, get monetary compensation in addition to getting a scholarship?

The revenue generating sports most likely are football & men's basketball.  Some other sports may produce revenue but it's a school by school case.


----------



## Freefaller

Pay them, sure, why not? Pay them and then send them a 10-99 form so that they have to pay taxes on their income and the full value of their scholarship!


----------



## dan0623_2000

Don't students currently pay taxes on scholarship money?


----------



## Beta

Monello said:


> Should student athletes, in revenue generating sports, get monetary compensation in addition to getting a scholarship?
> 
> The revenue generating sports most likely are football & men's basketball.  Some other sports may produce revenue but it's a school by school case.



Here's the problem: which schools pay the players and which don't?  If you look at the "revenue generating" sports, only some schools actually generate revenue.  Do you only count Division 1 for basketball?  FBS for football?  Would it only be the major conferences that must pay athletes?  Maybe only the teams that posted profits over the past few years would be forced to pay their athletes a share?  Is the stipend the same from school to school, or can the schools pay whatever they want?  

Once you draw the line somewhere, say the major conferences are the only ones who can pay, then all of the players will want to play for the teams that pay.  You'll never see a great player get drafted from a lower tier college because as soon as they get recognized they'll transfer to a school that pays them, because who is stupid enough to turn down a paycheck when you have the option?  A football team like Kentucky could have even more trouble being competitive if they aren't already generating revenue, whereas their basketball team would be fine.  But basketball teams like Butler and Wichita State, who probably couldn't pay their players, would be at an even larger disadvantage.

While it's a nice pipe dream and the revenue generating players should get a "piece of the pie", I don't think it's practical.  It's too much of a built-in advantage from the few schools that can actually afford it.


----------



## Larry Gude

We did this issue not too long ago.  A fair number of people seemed to be agreeable that the kids should not be paid but they should be handed a voucher for a full four years of school so when their playing days are over they get to go back and actually study.


----------



## Beta

Larry Gude said:


> We did this issue not too long ago.  A fair number of people seemed to be agreeable that the kids should not be paid but they should be handed a voucher for a full four years of school so when their playing days are over they get to go back and actually study.



If the kids aren't taking advantage of their educational opportunities while being given scholarships then what will 4 additional years do?  Plenty of players get degrees and even start advanced degrees (even finish on occasion) while also playing sports.  If some aren't wise enough to get a degree the first time around, why should the school pay for it?  They're given great access to academic advisers since everyone wants them to succeed.  I've seen players who went to the NFL get Engineering degrees or advanced degrees, so there's no excuse that there's not enough time to study and play.

Here's where I'd bend: if a player signs to a school on a 4 year scholarship and leaves after 3 years to go pro, he could be given the 4th year at a later date of his choosing.  That way he can finish up his original degree and get the benefits of the 4 years he signed for, even if he leaves early.  

It's on the player to make use of the time he's on campus.


----------



## Monello

Beta said:


> Here's where I'd bend: if a player signs to a school on a 4 year scholarship and leaves after 3 years to go pro, he could be given the 4th year at a later date of his choosing.  That way he can finish up his original degree and get the benefits of the 4 years he signed for, even if he leaves early.



Why should a player that stayed for 3 years get the same benefit as the kid that stuck around for all 4 years?


----------



## Larry Gude

Beta said:


> It's on the player to make use of the time he's on campus.



D 1 schools take in kids who have no business being there otherwise, use them, wear them out and then 2% of them go on to be pros. So, screw 'em, the school owes them nothing?

Penn State football takes in $50 mil a year. For 88 kids, IIRC that is how many they are allowed, that's about $250,000 a kid that is being brought in by the school for the privilege of watching them beat each other to a pulp. If you're a four year player and, say, pretty good, you helped earned the 'ol alma mater a cool mil.


----------



## Hannibal

Kids ought to be paid in some fashion.  And simply saying "scholarships" are the offset is not accurate or reasonable.  Scholarships are a formality of business.  It's an exchange of service.  They school is "paying you" the cost of the education.  And they are still making money on that.  If tuition is $25k/year is the tuition for a year, their costs are far less.  They make money on that. It's simple numbers.

Speaking as a former NCAA (D1) baseball player, even on scholarship, you are poor (and often poorer than most).  Let's be clear, most kids dont' pay their own way.  Their costs are usually the burden of parents.  So, even while being provided a scholarship, you still have other expenses (books/supplies which can be costly of course).  And the end result was that I had litterally had no money in my pocket.  My food choices were pretty much limited to what was being served in the cafeteria which was often an issue when practice/game schedules conflicted with the hours the cafe was open.  

Above this, given the expectations of your time to the sport, you literally didn't have time to work.  One off-season, I tried to find a part time job (just for spending money) but couldn't find employment given my requirements at school.  Offseasons were bogged down with training/weights and study hall.  Preseason was two-a-day practices, weights/training and study hall. In season was a mess of practices (on off days), weights and a rigorous travel schedule.  

For many of these kids, they are litterally school poor.  There is no money to take a girl out on a date.  There is no money to eat off campus.  There is no money to buy a new pair of jeans/shoes.  And God forbid you push back on the sport and demand more time ......... then you run the risk of putting your scholarship at risk.  

Keep in mind, while some kids have the ability to work/bank some money in the summer, for some, summers are tied up playing summer leagues where you are often away from home (living with a foster family) where you earn enough of a per diem to pay for your dinner.  

Something needs to be done.  I've always thought it should be proportional to the amount of time you are expected to provide to your team (inclusive of ALL activities).  Pay could/should be minimal but it's not unreasonable to think that a kid should be able to have $20 in his pocket to pay for gas or to take his GF to dinner every now and again.

Aside from this, there ought to be some additional consideration for continued education.  It is very tough to apply yourself on the education front (as you should) while being forced to apply yourself on the field at the same time.  

Don't get me wrong, it's still a gift to be able to receive an education for a skillset/talent you are, in sense, born with (and isn't available to everyone); however, something needs to be done to suppliment people who are in this position.  And the fact is, the NCAA makes a killing from these kids for services that aren't the most condusive to their education.  It needs to be a bit more balanced.


----------



## Larry Gude

Hannibal said:


> Don't get me wrong, it's still a gift to be able to receive an education for a skillset/talent you in sense with born with (and isn't available to everyone); however, something needs to be done to suppliment people who are in this position.  And the fact is, the NCAA makes a killing from these kids and makes a killing from them.  It needs to be a bit more balanced.



Good post.


----------



## Hannibal

Appreciate it.  However, after reading the quoted portion, I realized that my brain was moving faster than my fingers so I needed to go back and correct some horrible grammar/missed words.


----------



## Monello

For the most part only football & men's basketball generate any revenue.  Girls basketball may make some money at UConn where they always field a winning program.

I think the intent way back when was to have sports for the students.  Now you have the football coach as the highest paid person in the school.  Often times the athletes can't even read at a 3rd grade level. Then you have the illiterate college player like Dexter Manley.  Kids are recruited for their skills not their SAT scores.  Then the students are given classes that are little more than helpful to a student.

Many of the blue chip stud athletes are paid in the form of a donation from a school booster.  Although it's against the rules, what kid is going to rat out someone willing to give them an envelope full of money.


----------



## Hannibal

I do agree with the notion that many sport team carry players who otherwise would not be accepted to the place.  That needs to stop.  College is an earned venture and because you can break a tackle or shoot a 3-pointer shouldn't gain you access.  I would support an idea stating you had to maintain a certain GPA, meet all acceptance requirements and carry a course load (both in numbers and difficulty) in order to be a scholarship candidate.


----------



## Larry Gude

Hannibal said:


> I would support an idea stating you had to maintain a certain GPA, meet all acceptance requirements and carry a course load (both in numbers and difficulty) in order to be a scholarship candidate.



That's one of those "I can't drive 55" rules schools simply go about the steady business of violating from SMU to North Carolina to, now, it seems, Stanford. And it's one those things that makes the NCAA smirked at so often, like a Keystone Cop; scholastic requirements to provide the facade of 'student/athlete' for many the major sports and programs. 

American's do not care as much about schooling or integrity or any of that stuff as we do our violence. We WANT our Gladiators just like sex and drugs and alcohol and the money is there so some way, somehow, the supply is going to be provided. So, as it is a simple business deal, what we're talking about is paying the market price and as long as the controls are in place on the supply, grades, pretense of being a student, all the business majors in these schools look on with impressed young eyes and minds; "So THAT is how you do it, huh?"


----------



## Larry Gude

Hannibal said:


> Appreciate it.  However, after reading the quoted portion, I realized that my brain was moving faster than my fingers so I needed to go back and correct some horrible grammar/missed words.



If you'd paid attention in school.....


----------



## Hannibal

Indeed. Ha.


----------



## SG_Player1974

What I do not understand is that these "college-level" kids KNOW that they are signing up to play a sport and get a scholarship in exchange. They KNOW they will not have a lot of money (unless they or their parents are "wealthy") They KNOW that they will have to balance study and sports. They KNOW it is going to be hard.

All of this is already WELL KNOWN BEFORE they agree to play a sport and attend a major university YET... they complain about these very things and demand to be paid!

The way I look at it is... if you don't like it, feel free to drop out of the sport and pay your own tuition. :shrug:


----------



## Hannibal

SG_Player1974 said:


> What I do not understand is that these "college-level" kids KNOW that they are signing up to play a sport and get a scholarship in exchange. They KNOW they will not have a lot of money (unless they or their parents are "wealthy") They KNOW that they will have to balance study and sports. They KNOW it is going to be hard.
> 
> All of this is already WELL KNOWN BEFORE they agree to play a sport and attend a major university YET... they complain about these very things and demand to be paid!
> 
> The way I look at it is... if you don't like it, feel free to drop out of the sport and pay your own tuition. :shrug:



Yes and No.  To say kids KNOW these things isn't accurate.  No kid is recruited by a school that says "We are going to occupy all of your time so you might as well not plan on having any down time."  They might discuss practice philosophys and the coach might give them the standard allowances as mandated by NCAA.  But that doesn't cover their "expectations" concerning weight room time.  Doesn't cover the 2 hrs a night you are to be at study hall (keep in mind "studying" doesn't always pertain to the lessons you are being taught in class either, etc.).  None of that is discussed.

They also don't elaborate on the fact that in season, you are travelling and away from your "home" three nights a week, not to mention the hours on the bus when you're the away team.  And most kids think their time crunch is limited to the "in season."  

Call it ignorance of youth or salesmanship of a coach.  But that is reality in a lot of cases.

Above this, I think it's an unreasonable expectation that kids must accept this trade off as part of their commitment to a school.  Should a kid accept the constraints to his/her education while fulfilling his/her obligations while under scholarship?  Should the accept not being able to generate some spending money because they have no time available to them?

Also, keep in mind, the weight of a scholarship especially on a kid whose talent in borderline is HUGE especially if it's a reality that he/she couldn't pay their way otherwise.


----------



## Larry Gude

Hannibal said:


> Yes and No.  To say kids KNOW these things isn't accurate.  No kid is recruited by a school that says "We are going to occupy all of your time so you might as well not plan on having any down time."  They might discuss practice philosophys and the coach might give them the standard allowances as mandated by NCAA.  But that doesn't cover their "expectations" concerning weight room time.  Doesn't cover the 2 hrs a night you are to be at study hall (keep in mind "studying" doesn't always pertain to the lessons you are being taught in class either, etc.).  None of that is discussed.
> 
> They also don't elaborate on the fact that in season, you are travelling and away from your "home" three nights a week, not to mention the hours on the bus when you're the away team.  And most kids think their time crunch is limited to the "in season."
> 
> Call it ignorance of youth or salesmanship of a coach.  But that is reality in a lot of cases.
> 
> Above this, I think it's an unreasonable expectation that kids must accept this trade off as part of their commitment to a school.  Should a kid accept the constraints to his/her education while fulfilling his/her obligations while under scholarship?  Should the accept not being able to generate some spending money because they have no time available to them?
> 
> Also, keep in mind, the weight of a scholarship especially on a kid whose talent in borderline is HUGE especially if it's a reality that he/she couldn't pay their way otherwise.



Dude, you are now in charge of the NCAA.


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> What I do not understand is that these "college-level" kids KNOW that they are signing up to play a sport and get a scholarship in exchange. They KNOW they will not have a lot of money (unless they or their parents are "wealthy") They KNOW that they will have to balance study and sports. They KNOW it is going to be hard.
> 
> All of this is already WELL KNOWN BEFORE they agree to play a sport and attend a major university YET... they complain about these very things and demand to be paid!
> 
> The way I look at it is... if you don't like it, feel free to drop out of the sport and pay your own tuition. :shrug:



I think you are currently in charge of the NCAA.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Hannibal said:


> Yes and No.  To say kids KNOW these things isn't accurate.  No kid is recruited by a school that says "We are going to occupy all of your time so you might as well not plan on having any down time."  They might discuss practice philosophys and the coach might give them the standard allowances as mandated by NCAA.  But that doesn't cover their "expectations" concerning weight room time.  Doesn't cover the 2 hrs a night you are to be at study hall (keep in mind "studying" doesn't always pertain to the lessons you are being taught in class either, etc.).  None of that is discussed.
> 
> They also don't elaborate on the fact that in season, you are travelling and away from your "home" three nights a week, not to mention the hours on the bus when you're the away team.  And most kids think their time crunch is limited to the "in season."
> 
> Call it ignorance of youth or salesmanship of a coach.  But that is reality in a lot of cases.
> 
> Above this, I think it's an unreasonable expectation that kids must accept this trade off as part of their commitment to a school.  Should a kid accept the constraints to his/her education while fulfilling his/her obligations while under scholarship?  Should the accept not being able to generate some spending money because they have no time available to them?
> 
> Also, keep in mind, the weight of a scholarship especially on a kid whose talent in borderline is HUGE especially if it's a reality that he/she couldn't pay their way otherwise.



And you honestly do not think that the kids that were given scholarships for athletics do not already know all of this?!

I highly doubt these schools are just picking kids up from the local basketball court on the playgrounds, offering them scholarships, and crushing their dreams as you are portraying. These kids have already had to balance schedule with school. Workout times with study hall, etc. 

THEY KNOW THE DRILL!!

IF they want to be paid.... then that opens the door for expectations for that pay. 

"OK Lewis, we will agree to give you a 4 year ride AND pay you $1,000 per month. Don't show up for practice... FINE! Don't score at least 10ppg... FINE! Commit ANY minor crime (underage drinking, drugs, etc.) then you lose your paycheck AND your scholarship!

It will turn into pay for play... PERIOD! And you know that sometime down the line SOMEONE will complain that the other guy gets paid the same amount when THEY are doing better in the games. Its human nature. IT WILL HAPPEN. Then what do they do? Get an agent to market them to the highest paying school? 

Congratulations Kentucky for winning your 17th straight national championship because you are the only ones who can afford ALL of the Blue chip players!!!

I just think paying student athletes opens up a bad can of worms and would lead to a lot more problems than just hungry students and complaining media.


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> And you honestly do not think that the kids that were given scholarships for athletics do not already know all of this?! .



I think it is fabulous that you had that level understanding of context and implications at 18 years of age. Most 18 year olds I know nowadays just wanna smoke dope and play video games and don't even get the implications of that let alone the dynamics of being in a big time athletic program. 

You can have all that. I think it an awful thing to begin with how big college sports are in terms of money and how they have so much control over the labor supply.


----------



## Hannibal

SG_Player1974 said:


> And you honestly do not think that the kids that were given scholarships for athletics do not already know all of this?!
> 
> I highly doubt these schools are just picking kids up from the local basketball court on the playgrounds, offering them scholarships, and crushing their dreams as you are portraying. These kids have already had to balance schedule with school. Workout times with study hall, etc.
> 
> THEY KNOW THE DRILL!!
> 
> IF they want to be paid.... then that opens the door for expectations for that pay.
> 
> I just think paying student athletes opens up a bad can of worms and would lead to a lot more problems than just hungry students and complaining media.



You saying "they know the deal" isn't correct at all.  I also think you are thinkning of all scholoraship kids as being nationally recruited kids with definitive professional aspirations.  Keep in mind, out of the vast number of scholarships awarded, only a very small fraction move on.  And this idea of payment would apply to ALL NCAA players regardless of sport.  At that point in your life, SOOOO many things are going on while the idea of where you want to go to college is in play.  Couple that with a lot of parents who don't understand the process and things get blurred.  Mom and Dad might have their own objectives (quality of school, location, safety, etc).  Jr might have other lead thoughts such as how big the scholarship is, how much playing time they can expect year 1, etc.  It's a mess and is very confusing.  

I think you're looking at this in a manner that is far more lucrative than what I am stating. When I say "pay", I simply mean a stipend and a minor one at that.  It won't be varied between schools though it might be varied by sport (and again, based on actual time commitment).  

I am talking maybe $25/week (or some function of $$ per hour).  I am literally talking "spending money."  Enough money to grab a burger with your girl or go see a movie. Want a nice dinner?  Save your stipend.  

We can discuss more if need be.  I enjoy the conversaiton.  However, it's back to work I go.


----------



## SG_Player1974

My standpoint is that this... as we ALL know... would eventually turn into a pay-for-play system. Like I mentioned in my other post (which was oddly NOT quoted in the replies) it will most certainly turn into the best players going after the money. PERIOD! 

Example: If South East Chattanooga State could find a way and afford to pay their recruits top dollar for this "stipend" what do you think the odds would be that this tiny school would be collecting some.. if not most... of the Blue chip players?

Don't you think word would get around? As soon as it gets corrupted (and you know it will) it will be 10x worse than the system in place now!

If there was a way to make it fair and balanced... I am all for it. But, I just do not see that happening. They bend/break the current rules as it is.


----------



## Pete

Don't they get paid already?  A public school, tuition + room + board + books is anywhere from $20K - $30K per year.  4 years worth is $80K to $120K.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Pete said:


> Don't they get paid already?  A public school, tuition + room + board + books is anywhere from $20K - $30K per year.  4 years worth is $80K to $120K.



Yes they do... and when you take into account the possible loans and what they would cost down the road with interest for non-scholarship recipients, the costs go far higher than that.

The problem is... its not good enough! They want more. Even though they don't pay for their education, room, or possibly books... the school is supposed to feed them and pay for their date nights apparently.


----------



## Larry Gude

Pete said:


> Don't they get paid already?  A public school, tuition + room + board + books is anywhere from $20K - $30K per year.  4 years worth is $80K to $120K.



Of course they do. The question is if it is enough based on what their labor produces for the school.


----------



## Monello

Don't forget tutors.  I heard that some athletes on scholarship won't take a written exam all 4 years.  Somehow they are categorized as learning disabled.  Then when it's time to take a test, someone reads them the test and they answer.

That would explain how Dexter Manley made it to college not being able to read.


----------



## Larry Gude

Monello said:


> Don't forget tutors.  I heard that some athletes on scholarship won't take a written exam all 4 years.  Somehow they are categorized as learning disabled.  Then when it's time to take a test, someone reads them the test and they answer.
> 
> That would explain how Dexter Manley made it to college not being able to read.



If it was medicine it would be labeled malpractice but for whatever reasons we seem to be fine with the exploitation of athletes AND look at them as mature, reasonable, rationale thinking people who, every step of the way say "Why, yes, I think I shall enter into this agreement whereby my services shall accrue to the benefit of the school and I whilst concern myself with mere degrees, this education thing, simple scraps of paper, really, in my post playing career as I explore my many and varied options thus freeing me to get my groove on why the grooving is good.." 

The very idea of college athletics and this sham system we allow is about as unAmerican as it gets and it is so absurd that we actually worry that, absent the sham system, we'd have a, gasp, pay for play system.   Perish the thought in a free market, capitalist society.


----------



## Hannibal

SG_Player1974 said:


> My standpoint is that this... as we ALL know... would eventually turn into a pay-for-play system. Like I mentioned in my other post (which was oddly NOT quoted in the replies) it will most certainly turn into the best players going after the money. PERIOD! .




I don't disagree that it COULD turn into this.  However, my point is that if rules are put in place to avoid this, it SHOULDN'T happen.  The "pay" shouldn't be subjective or variable.  It should be the same at the top end D1 schools as it is for entry level D3 teams.  This would avoid team/schools from playing the "we pay more" deal.  It would be a a simple allowance that would be minimal but consistant.  Call it prison wages even.  If it's set up based upon an hourly rate, it could be $2.50/hr.  If you are obligated to conduct team activities for 20 hrs/week, your stipend would be $50/wk.  Every player on the team.  Hell, you could have punch cards for all I care where you're required to sign in/out for team functions. 

To avoid the corruption, rules would have to be put in place and monitored.  If they can't do that, you might as well have no rules at all.


----------



## Hannibal

Pete said:


> Don't they get paid already?  A public school, tuition + room + board + books is anywhere from $20K - $30K per year.  4 years worth is $80K to $120K.




Yes and no.  It seems people want to believe the term "scholarship" means all inclusive and all expenses paid.  That is 100% false.  Some scholarships are partial tuition.  Some cover some tuition and some board (it's simply a dollar amount).  Some may give you a "full ride" but it doesn't cover meal plans or books.  It all depends on the deal.  Schools have a set number of full scholarships avalable to them and they simply translate into dollars.  10 full scholarships x $20,000/year = $200,000 in scholarships allowed.  That can be given to 20 students in full.  Or 40 students at 50% and so on.  

And as noted before, it's a simple business transaction. They are trading your admission for your services.  Simple as that.  

The caveot though has been that schools/teams often advertise one level of responsibility and ultimately reqiure another.  And by the team you satisfy all your team requirments/obligations, you literally have no time to provide yourself with some means of income for simple basics.  You cannot find part time work with your team schedules.  Period.  Point blank.  

The notion of pay to athletes have been exegerated by a large population who simply see it as an "additional income."  It's not at all.  It's pocket change so these kids can go see a movie or eat a burger off campus.  Or ####, put some money in their bank.  They are deprived the oppertunity of providing their own income because their scholarship has literally made the school poor and unable to do so.  You often have situations where kids may be getting a reduced cost education but don't have money to do their laundry on the weekends or put gas in their car.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Hannibal said:


> To avoid the corruption, rules would have to be put in place and monitored.  If they can't do that, you might as well have no rules at all.



Ummm... Don't we have rules in place with the current system already? Don't we have a lot of problems surrounding money and athletes?

Vicious Circle. All this will do is create new problems on top of the ones we currently have with college athletics.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Hannibal said:


> The caveot though has been that schools/teams often advertise one level of responsibility and ultimately reqiure another.  And by the team you satisfy all your team requirments/obligations, you literally have no time to provide yourself with some means of income for simple basics.  You cannot find part time work with your team schedules.  Period.  Point blank.
> 
> The notion of pay to athletes have been exegerated by a large population who simply see it as an "additional income."  It's not at all.  It's pocket change so these kids can go see a movie or eat a burger off campus.  Or ####, put some money in their bank.  They are deprived the oppertunity of providing their own income because their scholarship has literally made the school poor and unable to do so.  You often have situations where kids may be getting a reduced cost education but don't have money to do their laundry on the weekends or put gas in their car.



What is the difference between what you are saying here and, lets say... an Advertising agent that puts in extra hours at work to get a large business deal done that will make the company a lot of money?

Does that ad man have the right to go into his boss' office and demand more money because he had to work a few hours late and wanted something "extra" to put in his gas tank or to take his wife out to dinner?


----------



## Hannibal

SG_Player1974 said:


> Ummm... Don't we have rules in place with the current system already? Don't we have a lot of problems surrounding money and athletes?
> 
> Vicious Circle. All this will do is create new problems on top of the ones we currently have with college athletics.



Yes, the NCAA is jackd up for a multitude of reasons.  I 100% agree with that for numerous reasons.  That's another topic of conversation though.  It doesn't mean because they can't manage themselves that the concept of "pay" for NCAA players is automatically a bad idea.


----------



## Hannibal

SG_Player1974 said:


> What is the difference between what you are saying here and, lets say... an Advertising agent that puts in extra hours at work to get a large business deal done that will make the company a lot of money?
> 
> Does that ad man have the right to go into his boss' office and demand more money because he had to work a few hours late and wanted something "extra" to put in his gas tank or to take his wife out to dinner?



Several differences - the ad agent is compensated in the form of salary (I assume) for his services.  He understands that additional hours may be required in some instances but he also has the benifit of having weeks/pay periods where less hours are demanded.  He also has the oppertunity for comission and/or bonus as a reward for his extra efforts.  More so, he is pursuing work in a free market whereas if his pay doesn't equal his hours - he/she can find work elsewhere.  That doesn't apply for NCAA players.  They get paid nothing regardless of the hours demanded.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Hannibal said:


> Several differences - the ad agent is compensated in the form of salary (I assume) for his services. So is the college athlete. Its called the scholarship.  He understands that additional hours may be required in some instances but he also has the benifit of having weeks/pay periods where less hours are demanded. So does the college athlete. Its called the off season. And they understand  about additional hours... unless they just never played the sport until college.  He also has the oppertunity for comission and/or bonus as a reward for his extra efforts. Not always. More so, he is pursuing work in a free market whereas if his pay doesn't equal his hours - he/she can find work elsewhere.  That doesn't apply for NCAA players. Correct me if I am wrong but.. don't NCAA athletes have a choice to transfer to different schools?  They get paid nothing regardless of the hours demanded. I don't get paid for the overtime that I work. I know LOTS of people who put in extra time with no compensation.



Answers in red


----------



## Hannibal

SG_Player1974 said:


> Answers in red



I am starting to question where your basis for responses comes from.  It seems you have a mindset based on how you perceive things to happen.  

1.  Ad agent can negotiate salary with multiple agencies before signing on.  Athlete is negotiating with "fake money" - it's more or less an offset of "fake costs."  
2.  If an agent determines their income doesn't cover their basic necessities/other, they can reduce their spending.  An athlete cannot.  Their choice is to not put gas in their car or wash their clothes (or others). 
3.  There are expenses to the athlete that a scholarship does not cover (some noted in #2).  This is the delta/gap I am referring to.  And to be clear, I am not talking about elective expenses (buying that new watch).  I am talking about gas money, lunch money, laundry money, etc.
4.  You are foolish if you think the time required of the athlete is that much reduced in the offseason.  I agree more time is required in season, but offseason especially in a competative school requires A LOT of time (and not just limited to physical activity).
5. Athletes do have the ability to transfer.  However, in MOST situations, you are penalized for utilizing that option.  An
6.  I fall into that same situation (am salaried and don't get paid OT).  That is part of the deal I accepted.  However, you are failing to see the obligation of the student athlete, whereas they are obligated to such an extensive amount of time that they don't have the ABILITY to generate any cash.  

All in all, scholarships are intended to offset cost of education/attendance in a mutually benificial arrangement.  It does NOTHING in terms of cash.  An analogy would be a vehicle agreement where your company cuts you a check each month to pay your car note if you use your vehicle for business use.  It's an offset to an expense.  Assuming your vehicle is your only cost consideration and that your monthly stipend is your only income, while your costs are covered, you don't have a dollar to your name to actually put gas in it. You still need some level of "cash" in hand to cover incidentals.  

And with the student-athlete and the requirements/demands of the team, you do not have the ability to acquire that cash.  Speaking from experience, you do not have enough time available to you work.  Certianly not in season and often times - not offseason.  You are more or less held hostage by your scholarship.  And since that scholarship is a means for some people to attend school (at least money wise), the notion of "simply don't play" doesn't cut it.


----------



## Larry Gude

Hannibal said:


> And with the student-athlete and the requirements/demands of the team, you do not have the ability to acquire that cash.  Speaking from experience, you do not have enough time available to you work.  Certianly not in season and often times - not offseason.  You are more or less held hostage by your scholarship.  And since that scholarship is a means for some people to attend school (at least money wise), the notion of "simply don't play" doesn't cut it.



As in most things, it boils down to a question of balance. At some point, the deal of scholarship for play was in a natural balance whereby what the kid is getting and what the school is getting are fairly reasonable. Nowadays, the demands on all that money big time sports generate from interests that have nothing to do with the big time sport and it's natural fan base has been distorted beyond recognition of a college player 30-40 50 years ago. Going back to Penn State and the $50 mil a year football brings in, 88 kids, the school is earning over $500,000 per kid. Assuming it costs them $100,000 a kid for everything including travel, that's a labor rate of less than 20%. Restaurant labor costs are about 35%. 

It's out of balance.


----------



## SG_Player1974

I'm sorry but I just don't see it.

An 18 year old kid is being offered, in effect, $100,000-200,000 to attend classes, play a sport, prepare for that sport, train, maintain conditioning, and whatever else they need to do in order to play and learn.

Bottom line is.... if they don't like the terms then they can feel free to turn it down or go elsewhere. PERIOD!

I just don't buy the whole "I didn't know how much time it would take." or "Its so hard balancing everything and I can't even take my girlfriend out" routine.

And to Larry.... your comment about the $50 million and the labor quota ONLY applies to Penn State. Let's go ahead and average that out against ALL Div-1A colleges and come up with a number. I will guarantee you it will be a far cry less and will bring those labor rates more into focus.


----------



## Hannibal

SG_Player1974 said:


> I'm sorry but I just don't see it.
> 
> An 18 year old kid is being offered, in effect, $100,000-200,000 to attend classes, play a sport, prepare for that sport, train, maintain conditioning, and whatever else they need to do in order to play and learn.
> 
> Bottom line is.... if they don't like the terms then they can feel free to turn it down or go elsewhere. PERIOD!
> 
> I just don't buy the whole "I didn't know how much time it would take." or "Its so hard balancing everything and I can't even take my girlfriend out" routine.
> 
> And to Larry.... your comment about the $50 million and the labor quota ONLY applies to Penn State. Let's go ahead and average that out against ALL Div-1A colleges and come up with a number. I will guarantee you it will be a far cry less and will bring those labor rates more into focus.



You need to (if not already) temper your thoughts to not only the BIG D1 schools but to also the smaller D2/D3 schools.  In some instances, you aren't being paid anything in any definition of the word (D3).  I played both (one before an arm injury and one after) an can attest that the D3 school required as much of my time as the D1.  And throughout it, I was basically a poor college kid. 

They don't detail this when they are recruiting you.  At best, your head is filled with visions of championships and warm sunny days on the ballfield.  The reality is two a day practices, weight room schedules, study hall requirements, etc.  The worst days were when practice would run late and you couldn't get into the cafeteria.  You were on your own digging for pocket change to hit up 7-11 with for some nachos.

Your scholarship doesn't pay you in "cash".  At best, you are given tuition and potentially some room/board and some meal plan.  So what do you do for the things you need physical cash for?  As I said:  gas in your tank, washing machines, a soda at 7-11?  

When I was a freshman, I tried to get a part time job.  There were furniture warehouses everywhere (North Carolina furniture district).  Signs up all the time looking for work.  Go apply.  Tell them you have the restriction of school commitments/practice (even offseason), etc. and they want nothing to do with you.  Even Circle K wouldn't hire me (and several teammates).  

There is a trade off at play here.  And it's out of balance.  Paying out (again a small amount) covers one hurdle.  Then you can get into academic impacts.  Someone still needs to tell me how you can carry 18 credit hours in a semester while allowing enough time for the actual class, required study, practice, study hall (again, not studying school material), other team obligations, etc.  Gets worse in season when you're travelling.  Try studying for that 400 level engineering course while riding 6 hours on a bus so you can take the test early when you get back into town (cause the professor's certainly won't let you take it late and you'll be 'away' on the scheduled test date).  

Again, don't equate scholarships with "future professinals" or blue chips.  That is a VERY small fraction of people and too often, special "things" are done to accomodate them (and that's BS).  The VAST majority of kids are using their talent to obtain an education that wouldn't otherwise be afforded to them and it's too often impacted because of unbalanced expectations of their time.


----------



## SG_Player1974

I think that half of your post should have been directed at Larry but....

As far as study time and balancing is concerned.... how is it being done now and how was it done for the last 40-50 years? All the time I see, during collegiate sports broadcasts, some honor student that is maintaining a 3.5 GPA while being a starter on the field/court AND participating in school programs. How do they do it? Do they have it easier than the students that need to be paid? They look like they are eating OK to me. How is it that they ALWAYS have someone to point to in these situations?

So... let me make sure I am getting this right. You are contending that if every college athlete were to be paid a small stipend per week/month/quarter/etc. that this would all be OK? On one hand you are saying that these kids are having a hard time balancing a schedule that I am 99% convinced they knew of beforehand BUT....somehow they will be able to handle this stipend money with no problems?

Good luck with that.

I say give it to 'em then! Minus taxes of course. It is income after all and will most likely be above the reportable amount. Hopefully, they can provide a mandatory break from their hectic schedules to file their 1040s


----------



## Larry Gude

SG_Player1974 said:


> And to Larry.... your comment about the $50 million and the labor quota ONLY applies to Penn State. Let's go ahead and average that out against ALL Div-1A colleges and come up with a number. I will guarantee you it will be a far cry less and will bring those labor rates more into focus.



Right but that becomes an exercise in chasing statistics. Your comment is fair enough yet then we get into variables like how much more or less tuition is somewhere else, who bends their admission standards the most to get jocks, what the actual requirements are for jocks in terms of classes they take, how culpable the school is in terms of, like the recent North Carolina thing, cheating on jocks classes and grades to keep them eligible and if this amounts to defrauding the jock in terms of the value we're talking about in terms of what the tuition is really worth if they teams have them in basket weaving so they can play, etc, etc, etc. 

On top of that, a little searching shows most Big 10 football programs, which includes our Terps, not exactly football leviathans, will make nearly $50 mil, each, per year, JUST from the new TV deal. So, while you're going to find some well under $50 million, I would venture that $50 mil is going to be a fairly decent average for the, what, top 50-100 programs nation wide. So, yeah, it seems that 85 kids a year (I looked that one up) who can gt full rides are helping to rake in nearly $600,000 per player for their ride that, is well under my 20% and as low as $9500 for instate tuition so, a local kid is helping bring $60 in for every $1 of tuition he is getting. 

I'm not seeking a pity party for these kids. I am pointing out that these kids help a business make a #### ton of money vs. labor costs in most any other business.


----------



## Larry Gude

Hannibal said:


> Again, don't equate scholarships with "future professinals" or blue chips.  That is a VERY small fraction of people and too often, special "things" are done to accomodate them (and that's BS).  The VAST majority of kids are using their talent to obtain an education that wouldn't otherwise be afforded to them and it's too often impacted because of unbalanced expectations of their time.



That's why I like a system where you are given some sort of credit for classes after your playing career. NBA is something insane like 3 kids out of 10,000. Football is like 1.6 per 100, only baseball is over 2% so, for the VAST majority of those kids that tuition ain't worth a hell of a lot if you're taking light classes and not doing well in the them. 

Again, using 35% income: labor from food service, a kid would earn over $200,000 a YEAR or $800,000 for four years which is a damn sight more than he's every going to see from a professional playing career for the VAST majority. 

College athletes are nothing but CHEAP labor. VERY cheap.


----------



## Hannibal

SG_Player1974 said:


> I think that half of your post should have been directed at Larry but..
> 
> As far as study time and balancing is concerned.... how is it being done now and how was it done for the last 40-50 years? All the time I see, during collegiate sports broadcasts, some honor student that is maintaining a 3.5 GPA while being a starter on the field/court AND participating in school programs. How do they do it? Do they have it easier than the students that need to be paid? They look like they are eating OK to me. How is it that they ALWAYS have someone to point to in these situations?..



Things are much different.  Sports were never the money maker it is now so the dynamics of the deal and the emphasis on the success of the sports have changed.  There is far more pressure on the student athletes.  As to how they do it (in terms of making grades), I guess that is based upon the individual.  I had a successful academic career myself and balanced it well with my playing career.  I did; however, have to endure the money issues noted previously.  I also believe my academic accomplishments could have been better with the availability of time and flexability.  Quite honestly, some people are geared to thrive in that environment (high intensity, high pressure, go go go, etc.) while others are not. 



SG_Player1974 said:


> So... let me make sure I am getting this right. You are contending that if every college athlete were to be paid a small stipend per week/month/quarter/etc. that this would all be OK? On one hand you are saying that these kids are having a hard time balancing a schedule that I am 99% convinced they knew of beforehand BUT....somehow they will be able to handle this stipend money with no problems?....



I am contending that if all student athletes are paid a modest sum (proportionate to the hours they commit to team/university mandated events), you would solve one of the bigger issues facing student athletes.  Again, I stress this isn't money in an amount one would brag about.  Even $20 a week would prove beneficial.  But I am not saying that "paying" them solves all the problems and it certainly doesn't solve the imbalance of a schedule.  However, it does resolve one of the negative results of that imbalanced schedule and eliminates one of the unforeseen hardships they are faced with.



SG_Player1974 said:


> I say give it to 'em then! Minus taxes of course. It is income after all and will most likely be above the reportable amount. Hopefully, they can provide a mandatory break from their hectic schedules to file their 1040s



That's all semantics really.  Players aren't taxed on their cash stipend they receieve when travelling that goes to paying for their dinner.  And before you get all hot and bothered about that amount, it runs about $15/day and is intended to cover all three meals.  Keep your fingers crossed you get to stay at a hotel with a contenental breakfast .......

The more this conversation goes on, the more it seems as if there is a real sore spot for those who went to college on a scholarship.  I am not sure why that is. Maybe there isn't, but there is certainly an apparent lack of understanding as to what really happens once pen meets paper in many instances so spare me the sarcasm.  I fully agree there are those who abuse the system but the vast majority do not and those same majority don't reap the same benefits as those who cheat.  And there will always been people who scam the system but that should not affect how the "good" ones are handled.


----------



## Tilted

The Ninth Circuit on Wednesday handed down what could be an import decision on this issue. If it stands in the Ninth Circuit (i.e. it isn't overturned by that court sitting en banc) it may lead to the Supreme Court hearing the matter because it seems to create a split among the various federal circuits.

The decision is a mixed bag. But the court found that, in at least some contexts, NCAA rules relating to the compensation of student-athletes violate antitrust laws.

Here is the ruling in O'Bannon v NCAA.


----------

